DuPont 2008 Annual Report Download - page 86

In late March 2007, the EU antitrust authorities issued a Statement of Objections that made antitrust allegations
regarding the PCP market against DPE, relating to the joint venture’s activities, and DuPont, to which both
responded. In December 2007, the EU antitrust authorities issued their decision, including the imposition of
fines against DPE, Dow and DuPont totaling EURO 59.25. In February 2008, DuPont appealed the decision to
the EU’s Court of First Instance which has jurisdiction to review the findings and adjust the fine. It is very unlikely that
the fine would be increased as a result of the review. In March 2008, the company provisionally paid the fine of
EURO 59.25 ($90.9 USD); a portion of the payment may be refunded if the appeal is successful. While a decision on
the February 2008 appeal has not been issued, the EU antitrust authorities revised the December 2007 decision by
imposing an incremental fine on Dow of EURO 4.425 ($6.5 USD). Dow provisionally paid the incremental fine in the
third quarter of 2008 which DuPont reimbursed under the agreements between the companies.
DDE resolved all criminal antitrust allegations against it related to PCP in the U.S. through a plea agreement with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) in January 2005 which was approved by the court on March 29, 2005. The agreement
requires the subsidiary to pay a fine of $84 which, at its election, is being paid in six equal, annual installments. The
annual installment payments for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 have been made. The agreement also requires the
subsidiary to provide ongoing cooperation with the DOJ’s investigation.
At December 31, 2008, the company has accruals of approximately $28 related to this matter and a receivable of
$3.9 for the remaining amount that it expects to be reimbursed by Dow.
Benlate»
In 1991, DuPont began receiving claims by growers that use of Benlate»50 DF fungicide had caused crop damage.
DuPont has since been served with thousands of lawsuits, most of which have been disposed of through trial,
dismissal or settlement. The status of Benlate»cases is indicated in the table below:
Number
of Cases
Balance at January 1, 2006 63
Filed -
Resolved (3)
Balance at December 31, 2006 60
Filed 2
Resolved (48)
Balance at December 31, 2007 14
Filed -
Resolved (3)
Balance at December 31, 2008 11
At December 31, 2008, there were nine cases pending in Florida state court, involving allegations that Benlate»
caused crop damage. Plaintiffs appealed the court’s 2006 dismissal of one of the nine cases for failure to prosecute
and the appellate court reinstated the case. Two of the nine cases, involving twenty-seven Costa Rican fern growers,
were tried during the second quarter of 2006 resulting in a $56 judgment against the company, which was reduced to
$24 on DuPont’s motion. At trial, the plaintiffs sought damages in the range of $270 to $400. The plaintiffs and
DuPont have appealed the verdict. DuPont believes that the appeal will be resolved in its favor and, therefore, has not
established an accrual relating to the judgment.
In the remaining two cases pending in Florida, plaintiffs allege damage to shrimping operations. These cases had
been decided in DuPont’s favor, but in September 2007, the judge granted plaintiffs’ motion for new trial thus
reinstating the cases.
During the first half of 2008, three actions pending against the company were resolved. One case in which the
plaintiffs sought to reopen settlements with the company and one health effects case were effectively dismissed.
Plaintiffs failed in their effort to appeal a second reopener case that had been settled in part for $1.2.
F-30
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements (continued)
(Dollars in millions, except per share)